Customer Reviews

The Leaders We Deserved (and a Few We Didn't): Rethinking the Presidential Rating Game

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Dr. Felzenberg creates a new and useful methodology for rating U.S. Presidents. Instead of one single grade as in previous surveys, he rates presidents on six criteria. The first three are internal characteristics that each president carries into the Oval Office: character, competence, and vision. The second three reflect presidential accomplishments: economics, protection of liberty and human rights, and defense and international affairs.

Felzenberg uses his methodology masterfully to provide his readers with concise, intriguing, and often amusing portraits of all Presidents (except William H. Harrison, James A. Garfield, and George W. Bush). Felzenberg weaves recent economic and historical research into his vignettes to provide readers with new and sometimes surprising insights into many Presidents.

For example, Felzenberg demonstrates that Ulysses S. Grant deserves a far higher rating, especially for his protection of the rights of the freedmen, than most historians have granted him. At the same time, Felzenberg convincingly proves that although Andrew Jackson was an extremely competent in achieving his policy objectives, his economic policies and his disregard for human rights were very damaging to the United States.

Felzenberg brilliantly peers into the complex personalities of Lincoln, Wilson, both Roosevelts, Nixon, and Reagan. Unlike many other historians, Felzenberg's analyses of the economic policies and results of the Presidents are well grounded in sound economic reasoning and indisputable facts.

This is a hard book to put down. Every reader will learn a great deal about the men who have served in the White House. Some readers may disagree with some of Felzenberg's grades for certain Presidents in one of the six criteria or another. However, all of Felzenberg's judgments are objective and based on thorough research. In summary, this thought-provoking book is a must buy and read.

Comparing presidents from over two centuries may seem to require a ton of homework at best, if it's not an impossible task altogether. But this book succeeds because:
1) The US Constitution hasn't changed much, nor the American's desire for liberty and the pursuit of happiness;
2) Felzenberg has done his homework, is insightful and is a master of concision;
3) As primary reasons for success/failure of aspects of a presidency become apparent, the book's conclusion provides a natural, clear and coherent how-to-look-for-a-good-president guide. And heaven knows, all this matters.
Like all the best history, this excellent book leaves me wanting to read more.

The idea behind Felzenberg's book is indeed a new approach, and one that works well. But he limits himself to only a few presidents for each of his 6 categories of measuring a president. Now surely some presidents are more important than others, and if he covered every president 6 times we would have a 1000 page book. But sometimes this approach leaves some questions open--for example, he gives Ulysses S. Grant a 5 on "Vision" then doesn't talk about Grant's vision at all. Another (minor) criticism I would have is the "Preserving and Extending Liberty" section almost exclusively deals with race, which while obviously a key factor is too narrow a definition.

Overall if you are a presidents buff and have always been interested in the ratings game as he calls it, I recommend the book. I'll make a final note: if you want to read about Lincoln and Reagan, he definitely focuses on those 2 guys more than the other 40.

As Obama and McCain now move to rewrite Presidential history, it is a very good time to receive Al Felzenberg's very good new book that also does. The Leaders We Deserve sets a new and better standard for Presidential ranking surveys. Move over, Arthur Schlesinger!

As a kid in 1962 I remember first seeing Schlesinger's Presidential ranking in the New York Times magazine. It surveyed 75 historians. It was and for some still is the summary snapshot judgment about Presidential governance. It shaped my presidential ranking perception for most of my life. Of course Lincoln was first and Washington second, as in any survey well they should be. FDR, hero of our fathers' generation, was unquestioningly ranked 3rd. "Progressive" Wilson was 4th, "philosophe" Jefferson 5th, and "democratic populist" Jackson 6th. By contrast, "stodgy" Eisenhower was down at 22nd. And "drunkard" Grant was a "failure". The Schlesinger ranking was a historical pronouncement presumed wise and well for a generation of American history students.

When later in life I was unshackled from liberal shibboleths and began to think for myself, I questioned on what basis and by what criteria was Schlesinger's survey made. To my knowledge Schlesinger offered his 75 colleagues no standard or criteria for their choices. How could Hoover, who made such a bust of the calamitous Depression, be rendered a historical gentleman's C in his rank of 19th? How could Grant, the determined yet magnanimous commander in the Civil War and presidential guardian of African Americans rights during the difficult days of Reconstruction, be ranked last, while the traitorous Doeface Buchanan could muddle through at 29th?

Felzenberg offers a objective approach, based on metrics established in six categories: character, vision, competence, economic policy, preserving and extending liberty, and defense, national security and foreign policy. Within each category the presidents receive scores of 1 (low) to 5 (high). Scores of all six categories are added and averaged. In each category Felzenberg ably compares and contrasts various presidents, allowing him to manifest his copious knowledge and comfortable writing style.

In history, as in politics, objective measurement leads to unexpected (inconvenient?) conclusions. Despite his eloquent writings, a temporizing and dissembling Jefferson drops to 14th for his more than mediocre vision and competence as president. Wilson, the priggish absolutist whose rigidity torpedoed the possibility of the League of Nations, and whose righteous but racist personal views tried to keep blacks and women in their place, is downgraded to 14th. The forthright but obscure Coolidge finally receives a fairer assessment, rising from 27th to 12th. Grant finally ascends from presidential ranking hell to take a place he more deserves at 7th. Eisenhower, wiser now than then we knew, rises to 5th. And the criminally racist Jackson, cruel perpetrator of the Trail of Tears upon Native Americans, the worst ethnic cleansing committed in North America, is rightly banished to the lower half at 27th (and should be removed from the $20 bill!)

No such ambitious work can cover all the possible ground. More detail about Polk, for instance, whom Schlesinger ranks 10th but Felzenberg demotes to 20th (and ranks among the worst in character) would have been interesting. A few unedited misspellings also distract just a little from the smooth read. And could the title have been sharpened to something more punchy and particular? (Hard to say: my own lame supposition of something like "Presidential Promise Realized and Refuted" reminds me how difficult a titling task can be.) But these are mere triflings.

On an important presidential subject in this important presidential year, Felzenberg delivers. As an excellent study of the history and caliber of Presidents, and especially in its offering of an objective metrics-based framework for measuring them, Felzenberg's book should be assigned in all high school American history classes. Responsible citizens should also take it up. After his detailed analysis and enlightening assessments, Felzenberg offers a guide for what to seek and to avoid in presidents. As now we progress these next two months to one of America's most historic elections, Al Felzenberg's The Leaders We Deserve can help ensure that we chose even more wisely--and thus realize what his fine book reports and recommends.

Whether you agree or disagree with Prof. Felzenberg's assessments, it's difficult to dislike a book like this one. Everyone, whether a history buff or not, enjoys the presidential rating game. And Felzenberg has given us a fresh approach. Instead of just giving us the results of some survey of opinions, he makes an attempt to quantify his results. Before giving us an overall score, he rates the presidents in six separate areas: character; vision; competence; economic policy; preserving & extending liberty; and defense, national security and foreign policy. It's clever, actually. Instead of giving a vague overview of a presidency, it gives him an opportunity to criticize particular areas of a president's performance while still giving credit where credit is due.

Felzenberg does some other things right, too. He does a good job of focusing specifically on a person's performance while president, and not on his achievements outside of his term(s). Jefferson, for example, rates lower on his list because the character and ideals of liberty he espoused so well in the Declaration of Independence and in the opposition party were not carried out in his presidency. He does a good job at assessing not only the immediate but also the long-term impacts of a president's policies. Jackson, for example, suffers much in this regard. He is also very good at giving us some background on most of the presidents. We get to hear some detail about Coolidge, Harding, Polk, Fillmore and Buchanan, among others who usually get short shrift in these kind of works. (Still, Lincoln, Washington, the Roosevelts, etc. get most of the pages.)

But let's not fool ourselves. The game is rigged. All of the analysis is Felzenberg's own so it reflects his own prejudices. The presidents he chooses to discuss in each chapter seem haphazard at times. His chapter on preserving and extending liberty focuses almost exclusively on the rights extended to African Americans. While this is important, issues like the Alien and Sedition Acts, immigration policies, womens rights and suspension of habeas corpus surely deserved more discussion. Despite his attempts at objectivity, he's clearly a fan of certain presidents and not fans of others. His chapter on economic policy clearly favors Reagan's ideas as opposed to FDR's. Other historians and economists might have different opinions on this, changing the ratings of these and other presidents.

Ultimately, I suppose, how one likes this book will depend, on some level, on how much one agrees with his ratings. For example, I like that he gives serious attention to Washington's achievements as president. I liked that he rated Grant and Truman high. I like that he didn't give into the Nixon revisionism and kept him near the bottom. On the other hand, I think he overrates presidents Teddy Roosevelt and underrates Clinton. And, though he doesn't rate G.W. Bush since his administration wasn't complete by the writing of the book, he clearly seems to favor him. Though, to his credit, he points out that only time will tell on this.

He finishes the book with some suggestions on what to look for and what to avoid in a presidential candidate. Again, his categories are interesting but almost impossible to apply in advance. It completely depends on how you interpret things. It was kind of a flat closing to an otherwise interesting book.

In the end, Felzenberg deserves real credit for a smart way of analyzing presidencies and writing interesting accounts of the presidents to illustrate his ideas. What I would like to see is Felzenberg's treatment attempted by a group of scholars to see what kind of consensus they come to. That would make for some very interesting reading--a great supplement to a very good book.

Americans are fascinated with rankings. From sports teams to cities, we enjoying making and reading lists of rankings based on some semi-objective criteria. Thus, it's no surprise that we'd also make lists ranking the effectiveness of our Presidents. Up until now, most Presidential rankings have been greatly influenced by Arthur Schlesinger's list that was created several decades ago. However, the rankings on that list were created using little more than the collective opinions of several historians. In his book The Leaders We Deserved (And A Few We Didn't), Alvin Felzenberg attempts to add a bit more objectivity to the process than Schlesinger provided. Felzenberg's innovation is to evaluate the Presidents on the basis of six criteria: Character, Vision, Competence, Economic Policy, Preserving and Extending Liberty, and Defense/National Security/Foreign Policy. Felzenberg weights each criterion equally, thus giving the evaluation of a Presidency a well rounded impression that is consistent across the Presidents. Felzenberg also takes pains to define the elements of each criterion so that the reader has a clear understanding of the basis on which each standard is applied.

While the methodology and criteria are well defined, I found this to be an incomplete analysis of Presidential effectiveness. The reason the book falls short of its goals is that Felzenberg assigns scores to every President for each criteria, but inconsistently explains the reasons why he assigned those scores. The scores assigned to some Presidents (Reagan, FDR, Lincoln) are exhaustively explained, giving the reader a good idea why they earned certain scores. Other presidents (Pierce, Benjamin Harrison, Coolidge) are only discussed under one or two criteria. Still other presidents (Tyler, Cleveland, John Quincy Adams) are not discussed in detail at all. Thus, Felzenberg relies on the reader's knowledge of US history to "fill in the gaps" and extrapolate why some presidents earned the scores that they received from him.

The book would've been more effective if Felzenberg had spent one chapter laying out the methodology and criteria, and then dedicated a chapter to each President, where the score assigned in each measure is explained. But, as the book is currently organized, The Leaders We Deserve (And A Few We Didn't) is an unsatisfying application of an intriguing theory.

Reviews criticizing this book for its supposed conservative bias are off target. (For example, Lyndon Johnson, generally a conservative bete-noire, comes in for great praise for his role in civil rights.) Anyone who's read the book will know that its most original contribution is assigning credit and blame, where appropriate, to lesser-known presidents whose actions had an important impact on economic history, civil rights, etc. For example, the discussions of the civil rights accomplishments of oft-neglected presidents like Grant and Coolidge, or of the various failings of an oft-praised president like Madison, add much new to our generally facile understanding of these presidents.

Of course, many readers may disagree with the author's characterizations of Reagan, which are probably the most controversial element of the book, but the sections on Reagan are neither hagiography nor polemic; they present facts in a measured fashion, and readers are free to interpret them differently than the author does. That does not detract from the overall value of this excellent and thorougly-researched book for readers of all political stripes.

Finally, readers interested in US economic history will find this book a fascinating review of economic policy, especially the monetary system, from the early republic through the modern era of the Federal Reserve system.

This book is highly recommended for readers of all political backgrounds. Though they may disagree with a few of the conclusions, the author's scholarship is undeniable, and Democratic-leaning readers interested in civil rights will find the book's discussion of those issues especially interesting.

In many ways I think this should be required reading in most schools and should absolutely be required reading for anyone who wishes to put our Presidents in any sort of rank. The author turns contemporary ratings on their ears and gives us a much more honest look at how our Presidents have fared over the years. I found his insights to be fair and honest and it's hard to disagree with his conclusions. Overall, I found the book to be a bit slow in parts but mostly entertaining and informative.

The Leaders We Deserved is a very interesting take on the history buff's parlor game of ranking the Presidents. Alvin Felzenberg makes a convincing argument that previous polls (especially the Schlesinger studies) were subject to bias, relying on consensus and lack of detailed analysis. Strong, effective leaders tend to be venerated regardless of the results of their policies, while the perennial "worst Presidents" (Buchanan, Harding, Hoover, Carter) were largely ineffectual. Felzenberg argues that this argument by consensus is unproductive and unhelpful, and while his system has its own prejudices and drawbacks, it's certainly a fresh and interesting take on American history.

Felzenberg provides a complex rating system, breaking a President's administration down into component parts: character, vision, economic policy, extending liberty, foreign policy/defense. He also judges Presidents on the overall affect of their policies, rather than merely their success or failure in achieving them. While itself subject to bias, this system provides a complex, detailed approach that general sweeping statements about a President's administration. Not every President is surveyed at equal length, and some are scarcely mentioned at all (if you want an in-depth study of Chester Arthur, stay clear of this book), but I'd argue that not every President was equal in accomplishments, importance or depth.

By providing detailed analysis of these component parts - sometimes of most or all Presidents, in other chapters of highlighted successes or failures - Felzenberg shows how these individual facets of a President shapes his administration, effectiveness and impact on history. His in-depth analyses are often fascinating: showing Franklin Roosevelt's economic policies in extreme deal allows him to consider what parts of the New Deal worked, and what didn't. And his "preserving and extending liberties" chapter is most interesting of all, showing each President's record on civil rights and liberties: it is from this section that many of the sharpest revisions emanate.

Felzenberg is inevitably biased himself: his worship of Ronald Reagan is jarring considering his relatively-balanced portrayal of other Presidents, even Clinton and Bush. And as mentioned elsewhere, his economic analysis is definitely of a right-leaning slant. For the most part, though, it's very balanced and thoughtful analysis: you can go through most of the book without guessing the author's political leanings.

The book contains many Presidential re-evaluations, though the usual suspects (Lincoln, Washington, the Roosevelts: good; Pierce, Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Hoover: bad) are left alone. He forcefully defends Ulysses S. Grant, arguing that the General deserves to be remembered for his stellar Civil Rights record rather than his scandal-plagued advisors. Similarly, his scathing analysis of Andrew Jackson is on-target: while Jackson was unquestionably an effective leader, his policies (the Trail of Tears, destroying the Bank of the United States) were largely deplorable. And his view that the great non-presidential achievements and personal characters of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Woodrow Wilson do not necessarily entitle them to their revered status, has a great deal of merit (a view which might be extended to Jimmy Carter).

In other cases, Felzenberg's revisionism is less well-placed: placing Zachary Taylor in the top ten Presidents of all time because of what he *might* have done if he lived is absurd, given his similar dismissal of the "what-if" specualtion about John F. Kennedy. His attempt to rehabilitate Warren G. Harding as a man who "possessed human impulses" (quoting Eugene Debs) is mind-boggling, and deserves greater analysis to have any merit.

But these shortcomings must be weighed in the balance. Overall, The Leaders We Deserved is a thought-provoking book and gripping read, both fun and informative. The next time CNN or AOL News runs one of those "Top 10 Presidents" polls (every six months or so), you'll perhaps be more apt to comment.

I was inspired to read this book based on the very mixed reviews here. I agree that the glorified review of Reagan, one of the most partisan of presidents, was highly biased - indeed, most of his reviews of the presidents after Kennedy showed a definite slant. His main economic reference was Milton Friedman. And the assessment of character can be highly subjective - although he justifiably gives Jimmy Carter high points here.

But when you go back further, it gets more interesting. The author proves that he is not just a knee-jerk conservative. He disagrees with many historians in that he gives Grant a relatively high rating - largely because of his efforts to promote the freedom and well-being of blacks during Reconstruction. Likewise, Wilson and Jackson are marked down because of their racist policies. Another interesting section pertains to James Madison - the author discusses why President Madison could have (and should have) avoided the War of 1812.

So I would recommend reading the book, although I wish it were organized differently (with a separate section for each president). It is probably impossible for one person to write a completely unbiased book on this topic.